It's about teaching the children... to be good little pinhead protesters!

Dixie said:
He doesn't have a God, DY... He claims he does, but before he can finish the sentence where he claims to believe in God, he is refuting and disbelieving God! Apple is one of those liberals who says; "Of course I believe in God... I am looking at him in the mirror right now!"

You see, with HIS kinda "God" you can believe anything you wish, you can cross the boundaries of decency, honesty, and respect for human life, and it's not a problem! You can hate, steal, lie, cheat... doesn't matter!
Click to expand...

"hate, steal, lie, cheat." Sounds like you're talking about organized religion.
 
WHAT A SURPRISE!!

I put together the posts that PROVE Yurt was full of shit as usual, and the gutless little crybaby runs away and hasn't been seen since.
 
Dixie said:
Revelations speaks of a "great war" between good and evil in the end time. When this happens, according to Revelations, the rapture has already occurred, and followers of God have ascended to heaven. The "great war" is between good and evil, not people.
Click to expand...

We're kind of back where we started. Assuming God is good and all-powerful etc. what power could evil have? In other words what is this "evil" that is powerful enough to confront something that is supposed to be all-powerful (God)?

A great war implies the forces of evil are strong, otherwise, it would not be a GREAT war. It would be a skirmish which God could quickly end which leads me to believe there is more than one entity who thinks of themselves as a God. Another entity or power which is powerful enough to confront God.

That leads back to the Bible talking about "the sons of God came into the daughters of men". God supposedly had one son, Jesus. As for the "sons" the question is, "Who's their daddy?"

It's reasonable to conclude there was more than one God or, at least, more than one Daddy who thought of himself as a God. Perhaps that's the "great war", aliens (daddies) fighting it out.
 
Damn Yankee said:
A real man would admit that he lost the argument instead of just being silly and obtuse, like you so aptly demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you have neither an answer nor a supposition. A real man would admit not having a clue rather than attempt to insult the person asking the question.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The issue is not if the union is allowed, but if the workers are forced to join it.
Click to expand...

So if the union called for a vote of confidence and the employees voted for the union to represent them then would you say Walker should scrap the dictatorial nonsense or resign?
 
apple0154 said:
So if the union called for a vote of confidence and the employees voted for the union to represent them then would you say Walker should scrap the dictatorial nonsense or resign?
Click to expand...
You seem unable to grasp the issue. I suggest that you re-read the statement that you responded to.
 
Dune said:
I could care less about his picture, I agree with his thinking.
Click to expand...

That's how pathetic DY and his comments are.

He can never counter my point, so he and his groupies ID and disloyal respond with the only "answer" they have the brainpower to come up with...make pathetic schoolyard fat jokes.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You seem unable to grasp the issue. I suggest that you re-read the statement that you responded to.
Click to expand...

You wrote, "The issue is not if the union is allowed, but if the workers are forced to join it."

So, let's say the workers want to join and the workers want the union to negotiate for them. What should be done with Walker?
 
apple0154 said:
You wrote, "The issue is not if the union is allowed, but if the workers are forced to join it."

So, let's say the workers want to join and the workers want the union to negotiate for them. What should be done with Walker?
Click to expand...

Again, that's not the issue. :palm:
 
Damn Yankee said:
Again, that's not the issue. :palm:
Click to expand...

Then your knowledge of the English language is lacking.

"The issue is not if the union is allowed, but if the workers are forced to join it."

"The issue is not if the union is allowed"....that means the allowing of the union is not the issue.

"but if the workers are forced to join it."....when "but" follows the previous part of the sentence followed by a reason then that implies what followed is the issue. :)
 
apple0154 said:
The babies don't suffer? You wrote, "Their lives are not painful at the end." No, I suppose their lives aren't painful at the end after they have suffered from seizures and spasms and being unable to swallow and finally, losing any mental ability/awareness. I suppose after slowly devolving into madness/insanity/total mental incompetence they don't show symptoms of pain.

I wonder how many anti-abortionists have been to a hospital specializing in sick children. Just as some people insist on those physicians who provide abortions being obliged to explain the procedure, how big the fetus is, etc., perhaps those who insist on bearing a child afflicted with a genetic illness should be required to visit a hospital that specializes in those illnesses. Make it mandatory for the person to view the agony those children endure, on a daily basis, before going through with the delivery. Wouldn't that be fair?

As for killing a human being abortion prevents a fetus from developing into a human being. Allowing a process to continue for nine months, knowing the result will be a human being who will suffer and die within a few years, is a good thing? Good for what, exactly?

The arrogance and selfishness comes from those who insist human beings go through the suffering.

As for unwanted/abused/neglected children having a bad life all one has to do is look at the prison population.

If one wants to reduce the number of abortions start by looking after the children already here. Show us those born in poverty will have equal access to a university education and a decent job. Show us single mothers will have day care and support. Show us those kids will have a proper diet and decent clothes to wear. Just show us the anti-abortionists really do give a damn. That's all.

(Excerpt) Although the incidence of child abuse and neglect has been decreasing in recent years, more than 1.25 million, or 1 in every 58 children in the United States, were abused in 2006.

An average of nearly four children die every day as a result of child abuse or neglect (1,760 in 2007).

Children in low socioeconomic families have more than three times the rate of child abuse and seven times the rate of neglect than other children. (End)
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/childabuse/a/05_abuse_stats.htm

That, in a society where abortion is freely available. Imagine a society where abortion was illegal. Imagine a society where people had to bear children they did not want.
Click to expand...

No my statements are based on the facts not the emotional strings you attempt to pull by describing the disease. Seizures are managed; gavage feeding is practiced; and pain management is a part of the care. Your solution instead of these measures is to just kill the child...that's twisted.

A fetus is a human being-abortion KILLS that human being-semantics really are not substitutes for scientific fact apple...but I understand your NEED to attempt that strawman.

Your stats regarding child abuse with regards to babies that have been aborted are meaningless. The children killed by abortion are not a part of those stats... We had a society, before abortion on demand was leagal, and it was more compassionate and more civil-abuse has increased despite the increase of abortion on demand due to ROE... The message of abortion is that it devalues the life of children.

I would rather imagine a society of responsible people where children are valued inside and outside the womb. One where it is legally clear that the only real and responsible choice happens before sex-not after an irresponsible moment. That if a woman gets pregnant that she consider her moral and ethical choices to be (adoption VS parenting) not killing her unborn child. A society where the need to employ the use of semantics in order to justify killing unborn children ends.
 
apple0154 said:
Then your knowledge of the English language is lacking.

"The issue is not if the union is allowed, but if the workers are forced to join it."

"The issue is not if the union is allowed"....that means the allowing of the union is not the issue.

"but if the workers are forced to join it."....when "but" follows the previous part of the sentence followed by a reason then that implies what followed is the issue. :)
Click to expand...

As usual, when Apple is destroyed in debate, he turns silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top